Disparity in PPPK Contract Extension Periods in North Tapanuli Sparks Polemic, DPRD to Summon BKPSDM

The policy of the North Tapanuli Regency Government in North Sumatra, which issued Decrees for the extension of Government Employees with Work Agreements with different contract periods—namely one year and five years—has raised major questions. The PPPK employees hold the same employment status but received different treatment regarding their contract extensions. This situation has prompted queries about the legal basis, assessment indicators, and even suspicions of non-technical factors in the issuance of the decrees. A number of PPPK have questioned why some employees received extensions of up to five years while others only received one year. The disparity is considered potentially to cause jealousy and a perception of injustice if not accompanied by a transparent explanation. The Head of the North Tapanuli BKPSDM, Jenri Simanjuntak, stated on Thursday (4/6) that the extension of PPPK contracts was carried out based on PPPK management provisions referring to organisational needs and performance appraisal results. ‘In accordance with the provisions on PPPK Management, PPPK contracts can be extended according to needs and based on performance appraisals,’ he said. According to him, differing contract extension periods are possible as long as they are based on performance appraisal results, competency suitability, and the principle of rewarding employee dedication. He also referred to Government Regulation Number 49 of 2018 which states that PPPK who demonstrate loyalty, dedication, proficiency, honesty, discipline, and work achievement may be given awards. However, this explanation has not revealed in detail the indicators used by the regional government to determine which PPPK receive a five-year contract and which receive only one year. It remains unknown whether there is a written assessment standard, a performance weighting system, or an evaluation mechanism applied uniformly to all PPPK. The lack of transparency regarding the basis for determining the contract period has sparked various speculations among the public, including allegations of certain closeness or political payback in granting longer contract extensions. These allegations have never been proven to date and require official clarification from the regional government to prevent them from developing into a wider polemic. The Chairperson of Commission A of the North Tapanuli DPRD, Poltak Sipahutar, said his party would schedule a summons for the BKPSDM to request an official explanation regarding the differing validity periods of the PPPK decrees. ‘We will schedule a summons for the BKPSDM regarding this information on the varied PPPK decrees so that this issue becomes clear and does not create negative perceptions among the public or the PPPK,’ he said. Meanwhile, the Regional Secretary of North Tapanuli Regency, Herry Sitompul, as the Chairperson of the Baperjakat, has not yet provided a response. When confirmed via mobile phone, the individual concerned chose not to answer the questions posed. This issue is considered important because it concerns job security, employee rights, and the credibility of the regional government in implementing the principle of meritocracy. The DPRD is expected to be able to openly reveal the basis for issuing these different decrees, including ensuring there is no intervention of interests outside the provisions of laws and regulations. The Head of the North Tapanuli Health Office, Ganda Nainggolan, whose agency is one of the regional apparatus organisations with a sizeable number of PPPK, also has not provided an explanation regarding the difference in the decree extension periods. When contacted via mobile phone on Thursday (4/6), the individual concerned did not provide a response. The attitude of several officials who chose to remain silent only strengthens public questions regarding the basis for issuing the varying PPPK extension decrees. Transparency is deemed an urgent necessity to avoid the emergence of allegations of special treatment for certain groups or other interests outside the performance appraisal mechanism regulated in the PPPK management provisions.